tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post7103817012494984104..comments2018-02-07T09:36:36.206-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Penn State's Punishment and Social FactsGlen Whitmannoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-91908357095362214072012-08-05T17:21:44.772-07:002012-08-05T17:21:44.772-07:00Are the withdrawn wins also scrubbed from the reco...Are the withdrawn wins also scrubbed from the record of games played by the opponents? Would an opponent now have a record of, say, 10 - 0 instead of 10 - 1? What happens to they game they played and lost? Could a school now claim an undefeated season?Paladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08715703441414763798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-54018821787391270782012-07-26T11:16:55.868-07:002012-07-26T11:16:55.868-07:00Unknown, if you think we disagree, then I think yo...Unknown, if you think we disagree, then I think you need to read more closely. My position <em>encompasses</em> yours. I said, &quot;Okay, fine, you [NCAA] can define ‘win’ however you want for NCAA purposes&quot; -- which is the sum total of your argument. NCAA gets to set its own rules and definitions. But then I go a step further by saying what NCAA <em>doesn&#39;t</em> have the power to do: to change what the general public thinks constitutes a win. At best, they can <em>influence</em> what the public thinks on that question. <br /><br />One reason I think the NCAA may have a difficult time persuading the public to go along with its definition is that it seems odd to characterize sexual abuse as &quot;cheating.&quot; Reprehensible, horrifying, and disgusting? Absolutely. But I suspect &quot;cheating&quot; has a different connotation to most people. I think of corked bats, steroids, and other things that confer an unfair advantage. It&#39;s hard to see how molesting young boys would result in better outcomes on the playing field.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-40642616320919187912012-07-26T10:19:43.279-07:002012-07-26T10:19:43.279-07:00I seldom bother to comment on blogs, but your err...I seldom bother to comment on blogs, but your error is too egregious to simply let stand. The &quot;historical&quot; record of sporting events is often changed, because the accepted result is subject to the constraint that you didn&#39;t break the rules... in other words that you didn&#39;t cheat. This has happened plenty of times in individual sports (think Ben Johnson at the Olympics...Jim Thorpe springs to mind but for other reasons), but it has also happened in team sports... nothing new here. &quot;Penn State&quot; as a corporate body (not a corporation) cheated by harboring individuals breaking the law, and as cheats their &quot;victories&quot; cannot stand, and, yes, Texas A&amp;M did win those bowls.... because their opponents cheated: no individual players need have cheated, but the body they represent did cheat. Tough... but suck it up and get over it: no misrepresentation of history, just the re-establishment of the truth.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12486492108069952099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-57946775088073723642012-07-26T10:12:20.895-07:002012-07-26T10:12:20.895-07:00I think what they&#39;re really saying is that off...I think what they&#39;re really saying is that official recognition of those wins will be withdrawn. The real penalty here is being removed from the record books and so forth. <br /><br />It&#39;s like when people talk about a championship or medal having an &quot;asterisk&quot; -- you can say you won it, but we all know that there were things going on that make the win suspect. It makes more sense when you talk about cheating (i.e. we know you didn&#39;t &quot;earn&quot; the win), but one real result is the statement that no one will ever remember your wins without also remembering your shame.optichttp://optic.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.com